Politics

[rookhawk]

Both parties have candidate school. (1) never give an answer that’s more than two minutes. (2) Always repeat your answer. (3) make your answer so a 5 grader can understand.

Not from school but recommend for use. Make your written answer all one long sentence, so when they misquote you they have to use ellipses.

In business they always shun products that require a lot of explanation. They call this negative situation being forced to "make your market". I have to convince you this new widget you've never heard of before is something you care about, want to buy, and cannot hesitate to decide.

The last time a US president "made their market" was Ronald Reagan. He explained why our principles were good and correct, he was candid and genuine in our aim, he educated the masses to care about applied theory, he garnered the largest landslide presidential win in my lifetime. If you want to control mindless drones until they revolt, you speak in soundbites. If you want to change the world, you better make your market and get the citizenry behind your approach with an educational awareness campaign.

 

[Red Leg]

No doubt, self-determination should be considered.

But that does not alter the fact that if indeed US/NATO have gone back on our word regarding Eastward expansion, we could expect negative consequences?

Practically speaking, when did the US or USSR allow self-determination of smaller countries? Our approach has been coercive for a very long period of time. The UK telling Zelinsky that he couldn't negotiate with Putin at the early stages of the war? Withholding foreign aid to Ukraine several years ago unless they fire the prosecutor pursuing Biden's crack-kid? Fruit companies causing US driven wars in central America?

We welched. We lied to Russia. We expanded NATO 5x. Was it wise in the long term to F around with a weak Russia? Probably. We have hegemony in Eastern Europe and we're buddies with the former Warsaw Pack club, so that's a win. But we're also liars now, so we did create a credibility problem for ourselves in the process.

Let me offer some facts.

There is no legal agreement, no treaty, no memorandum of record between the US or NATO with either the Soviet Union or Russia that limits NATO expansion eastward. None.

The Russians have argued that "comments" made by U.S. and other Western leaders during the negotiations over the reunification of Germany constituted a promise that NATO would not extend beyond then-East Germany. I refer back to point number one.

Even Gorbachev, as recently as 2014 said the issue never came up even though he claimed Eastern European expansion was not in the spirit of the German reunification negotiations. His exact quote.

"The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a single Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn’t bring it up, either."

Can Russia claim it was misled? Perhaps. But there is no formal agreement of any sort that NATO could not expand. More importantly, NATO now has a well institutionalized process and history of doing just that. Much of it recently enabled by the strategic genius in the Kremlin.

With respect to demanding buffer zones or limiting the sovereignty of other states, that is only the prerogative of nations with the power to demand such limits. In 1947, with a newly developed nuclear capability and 3.5 million troops of the Red Army spread across Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union could enforce such a hegemon - a position it held at great cost to this country for half a century. In what world is it in the United States' or Western Europe's interests to do anything to encourage, or even worse by withholding aid, become partner in the recreation and expansion of that anti-democratic empire.

 

[Kevin Peacocke]

I just listened to the Putin interview with Tucker Carlson this morning. It's the first time I listened to Putin speak for 2 hours.

My initial reaction wasn't to even evaluate fact from reasoned opinion from propaganda and outright lies. My first reaction was that we're a nation run by imbeciles. Putin was cogent, articulate, communicated his views in educated adult terms, and built his arguments on logical foundations.

All this was in the contrast of our politicians and presidents that cannot articulate complex topics in a reasonable fashion. The last time I heard a head of State trying to raise the IQ of the audience in this fashion was Reagan.

Damn have we voted in idiots in this country. I need to spend the next few days and actually break down the facts from the lies in Putin's interview, but regardless of my future opinions, I left ashamed in the elected politicians of my country by contrast.

I am not sufficiently up in the factual history to comment upon that part, but why I gave what you said the top emoji Rook is because I agree the calibre of US leadership, their total ineptitude is so disgustingly low that it evokes not just contempt and scorn, but utter fear. It begs the question whether the current system is too fatally flawed to allow this clown show to continue? Talk about frustration!
Surely there must be a way other than bumbling along forever hand wringing to get:
1. Potus age ceiling
2. Term limits in the house and senate
3. Compulsory mechanisms to force sensible outcomes (a hard one, agreed).

 

[Altitude sickness]

Lord help us if the Mongolians wanted their maximum held territory back

 

[tarbe]

Let me offer some facts.

There is no legal agreement, no treaty, no memorandum of record between the US or NATO with either the Soviet Union or Russia that limits NATO expansion eastward. None.

The Russians have argued that "comments" made by U.S. and other Western leaders during the negotiations over the reunification of Germany constituted a promise that NATO would not extend beyond then-East Germany. I refer back to point number one.

Even Gorbachev, as recently as 2014 said the issue never came up even though he claimed Eastern European expansion was not in the spirit of the German reunification negotiations. His exact quote.

"The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a single Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn’t bring it up, either."

Can Russia claim it was misled? Perhaps. But there is no formal agreement of any sort that NATO could not expand. More importantly, NATO now has a well institutionalized process and history of doing just that. Much of it recently enabled by the strategic genius in the Kremlin.

With respect to demanding buffer zones or limiting the sovereignty of other states, that is only the prerogative of nations with the power to demand such limits. In 1947, with a newly developed nuclear capability and 3.5 million troops of the Red Army spread across Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union could enforce such a hegemon - a position it held at great cost to this country for half a century. In what world is it in the United States' or Western Europe's interests to do anything to encourage, or even worse by withholding aid, become partner in the recreation and expansion of that anti-democratic empire.

I had to like it...great points!

 

[Scott CWO]

Some very interesting comments by the newly elected Finnish president

New NATO Member Finland Elects a President Set to Keep Up Hard Line on Neighboring Russia​

New NATO Member Finland Elects a President Set to Keep Up Hard Line on Neighboring Russia

Former Prime Minister Alexander Stubb has narrowly won a runoff vote to become Finland's next president, who will steer security policy that includes integrating the new NATO member into the alliance.

www.military.com

Too bad we don’t elect statesmen like this anymore. I don’t agree with everything he does, but the Fins system is more professional than ours at this time.

 

[Scott CWO]

I actually agree with you. Americans are indeed shallow and woefully uneducated. They can listen to Putin spout his version of history, and have no educational basis to challenge it.

Yes, it’s unbelievable to me. I loved History in school but I was definitely in the minority. It’s sad to see street side interviews on TV in which lots of people can’t name our first President or the three branches of government and know very little about history, let alone details of wars, treaties and the history of other countries.

 

[Red Leg]

Huey?

All the Longs plus Edwin Edwards, Ray Nagin and nearly every other politician in the state. We even have a word for the graft that goes with the job - "lagniappe." It means a "little extra."

 

[Wishfulthinker580]

I’ve come to the conclusion that Tucker is an idiot. Just had to put that out there

 

[Red Leg]

He was apparently a participant in a World Government Summit in Dubai yesterday. Where he was pressed about why he didn't question Putin about the fate of so many of his political rivals. His response was interesting.

"I didn't talk about the things that every other American media outlet talks about," Carlson said.

"Because those are covered and because I have spent my life talking to people who run countries in various countries and have concluded the following: that every leader kills people, including my leader."

"Every leader kills people. Some kill more than others. Leadership requires killing people."

Apparently the morality or justification of the choices a leader makes are inconsequential. Just get out there and get to killing. I have to admit, on both the home front and in Ukraine Vladimir Putin is fulfilling Carlson's definition of leadership.

He is also correct that he avoided all those hard questions a real journalist would have posed to Putin. Instead content to allow the former KGB agent and dictator to wax eloquently if interminably through his revisionist interpretation of history.

Over on state sponsored "news" in Russia they are swooning over it. And why not? Goebbels could not have arranged it any better.

 

[Wishfulthinker580]

He was apparently a participant in a World Government Summit in Dubai yesterday. Where he was pressed about why he didn't question Putin about the fate of so many of his political rivals. His response was interesting.

"I didn't talk about the things that every other American media outlet talks about," Carlson said.

"Because those are covered and because I have spent my life talking to people who run countries in various countries and have concluded the following: that every leader kills people, including my leader."

"Every leader kills people. Some kill more than others. Leadership requires killing people."

Apparently the morality or justification of the choices a leader makes are inconsequential. Just get out there and get to killing. I have to admit, on both the home front and in Ukraine Vladimir Putin is fulfilling Carlson's definition of leadership.

He is also correct that he avoided all those hard questions a real journalist would have posed to Putin. Instead content to allow the former KGB agent and dictator to wax eloquently through his revisionist interpretation of history.

Over on state sponsored "news" in Russia they are swooning over it. And why not? Goebbels could not have arranged it any better.

Did you see how he answered when questioned about Gaza??

 

[sestoppelman]

He was apparently a participant in a World Government Summit in Dubai yesterday. Where he was pressed about why he didn't question Putin about the fate of so many of his political rivals. His response was interesting.

"I didn't talk about the things that every other American media outlet talks about," Carlson said.

"Because those are covered and because I have spent my life talking to people who run countries in various countries and have concluded the following: that every leader kills people, including my leader."

"Every leader kills people. Some kill more than others. Leadership requires killing people."

Apparently the morality or justification of the choices a leader makes are inconsequential. Just get out there and get to killing. I have to admit, on both the home front and in Ukraine Vladimir Putin is fulfilling Carlson's definition of leadership.

He is also correct that he avoided all those hard questions a real journalist would have posed to Putin. Instead content to allow the former KGB agent and dictator to wax eloquently if interminably through his revisionist interpretation of history.

Over on state sponsored "news" in Russia they are swooning over it. And why not? Goebbels could not have arranged it any better.

Serious non snark question. I have not watched the interview and dont care to waste 2 hours of my time.

What current real journalist do you imagine would have asked the hard questions in that setting, that TC didnt?

 

[Hunt anything]

All of this @redleg just reinforced what @ wishfullthinker580 said. When he first took over for Oreily I could tolerate him but I was done with his Kamala type laugh long before Fox was.

 

[Tundra Tiger]

Serious non snark question. I have not watched the interview and dont care to waste 2 hours of my time.

What current real journalist do you imagine would have asked the hard questions in that setting, that TC didnt?

Shannon Bream

 

[Red Leg]

Did you see how he answered when questioned about Gaza??

I must have been taking a break then. He has commented as recently as mid-December that there is no comparison between the Special Military Operation and the Israeli Incursion into Gaza because the Russians are avoiding damage to civilian infrastructure, avoiding civilian casualties, and not creating a humanitarian crisis. I have no idea how long his nose was when he finished that assertion.

Avdiivka Ukraine

Mariupol Ukraine

 

[Red Leg]

Serious non snark question. I have not watched the interview and dont care to waste 2 hours of my time.

What current real journalist do you imagine would have asked the hard questions in that setting, that TC didnt?

Christiane Amanpour, Benjamin Hall, Lara Logan, or Catherine Herridge (just fired by CBS) are respected international journalists who would work him over (with great deference) like a federal prosecutor. None of them have a softball anywhere in their kit bag. It is why they will never see the inside of the Kremlin.

Still in edit mode - Megyn Kelley is another who would be politely relentless and totally prepared. Would also give Putin and Trump something to discuss.

 

[sestoppelman]

Christiane Amanpour, Benjamin Hall, or Catherine Herridge (just fired by CBS) are respected international journalists who would work him over (with great deference) like a federal prosecutor. None of them have a softball anywhere in their kit bag. It is why they will never see the inside of the Kremlin.

Good choices, but maybe for Amanpour, not sure about her.

But there is a difference between them, and Shannon Bream mentioned above: they are actual journalist's..

Not sure TC counts as such or even if he would call himself one, he is an opinion piece guy like Hannity and others.

 

[Red Leg]

Good choices, but maybe for Amanpour, not sure about her.

But there is a difference between them, and Shannon Bream mentioned above: they are actual journalist's..

Not sure TC counts as such or even if he would call himself one, he is an opinion piece guy like Hannity and others.

I agree with you. He is a an editorialist - that is not a pejorative. So was Rush Limbaugh. He has a narrative to sell. It is why one has to consider all the reasons he found himself in that room and not one of those listed above. To my mind, it is almost impossible then not to conclude that he and Vladimir Putin are selling the same product.

 

[sestoppelman]

I agree with you. He is a an editorialist - that is not a pejorative. So was Rush Limbaugh. He has a narrative to sell. It is why one has to consider all the reasons he found himself in that room and not one of those listed above. To my mind, it is almost impossible then not to conclude that he and Vladimir Putin are selling the same product.

Very possible, but it might also be that in his mind, he felt that Putin being a national pariah, should have a chance to just lay out his thoughts.
Nobody else seemed to be willing to do that.
Just a possibility. Not to mention the amount of publicity he gains from it.

 

[Wishfulthinker580]

I must have been taking a break then. He has commented as recently as mid-December that there is no comparison between the Special Military Operation and the Israeli Incursion into Gaza because the Russians are avoiding damage to civilian infrastructure, avoiding civilian casualties, and not creating a humanitarian crisis. I have no idea how long his nose was when he finished that assertion.

Avdiivka Ukraine
View attachment 587166

Mariupol Ukraine
View attachment 587167